Before we take up consideration of the Report Stage of this Bill, it would be well if I indicated that there is one amendment— amendment No. 7—standing in the name of Senator Quinlan which is out of order, on the ground that the section proposed to be deleted by the amendment was affirmed positively in Committee. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together.
Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1961—Report and Final Stages.
Before moving these amendments, I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for the way in which he has met five of the amendments I moved previously. In so doing, he has given hope to us that perhaps we are not, after all, hitting our heads off a stone wall in trying to do our duty on Committee Stage. I think the Minister's action in this is the most positive response we in this House have got on a major Bill from a Minister, certainly during my period here. I thank the Minister very much for his approach to the problem.
I felt I had something to contribute in these amendments dealing with a research organisation. The amendments arose very largely out of comparisons between this organisation and other research organisations we know are working smoothly. That is why I return here and hope the Minister will still be open to conviction on some of the remaining amendments.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete section 8 (2), lines 36 to 38, and substitute the following new subsection:—
"( ) The Board shall consist of—
(i) One member appointed alternately by the Science and Engineering Faculties of each of the following institutions:
University College, Dublin.
University College, Cork.
University College, Galway.
Trinity College, Dublin.
(ii) The President of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland, or his nominee.
(iii) The President of the Institute of Chemists or his nominee.
(iv) Three members appointed by the Minister."
The amendment proposes that portion of the Board should be nominated by outside bodies actively engaged in research or actively engaged with those taking part in research, like the University Colleges, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institute of Chemists. I think it would be very worth while that power should be given to those bodies to nominate to this Board. This is necessary. First of all, the general principle is sound, the principle being that the State should not try to do what other bodies can do as efficiently or better. I can hold here, without fear of contradiction, that the universities are far more capable of appointing suitable research people to man the Board of this new Research Institute than the Minister's Department can be, because the Minister's Department has not got any section dealing with this type of research work. It has no active scientists on its staff. Consequently, I fail to see how any officials in that Department can advise as to how those scientists should be selected from a roster of at least 50 or 60 active scientists in the country.
I appeal to the Minister to give portion of the nomination over to the University Colleges and to Trinity College, Dublin. In doing that, I am not asking any favour for the universities. In fact, it involves more work for the faculties concerned. However, it is a type of public service and a free, gratis, work that we feel we are in a particularly suitable position to achieve. It is the type of work that would be asked from universities in any other country, namely, taking responsibility for nomination to research organisations that are rather closely linked with the State.
We have the parallel here, if we need a parallel, in the Agricultural Institute which was set up in January, 1958. That Institute was subjected to greater scrutiny and greater investigation than any other body we set up in the past 15 or 20 years and the results are obvious. It is a properly constituted and highly autonomous institute which is already doing tremendous work and fully justifying the confidence we all reposed in it. That body has its Council of 12, plus a chairman. Of those, you have one nominated by each of the University Colleges, Dublin, Cork and Galway and Trinity College, Dublin. You also have a nomination from the producer interests concerned, divided into five panels. The Minister nominates three members as well as nominating the chairman. That is a reasonable balance on such a board and I cannot see why there should be such a radical departure from that system when we come to deal with the corresponding institute to carry out research problems, both routine and applied, for all industry.
I would regard it as being far more necessary that we should break with the past. In the ante-room today, I was speaking to a scientist who had spent some time with this Institute and his verdict was that the reason it had not achieved more was that it was subjected to far too much State control and day-to-day interference. I am appealing that these four members should be appointed.
Next, we come to those actively concerned in research work. They fall into several broad categories. We have the engineers and the chemists. The engineers are banded together in the Institute of Civil Engineers of Ireland, although mechanical engineers and others are admitted to membership, and many of them are members of this Institute. Therefore, this is an ideal body to contribute a number of its members. It is stated in subsection (3) of Section 8 that the members to be appointed by the Minister should, amongst other things, be representative of persons employed in industry. If the Minister is looking for persons representative of those employed in industry, then I submit that the body which should make that nomination is the Institute which caters for them. Therefore, we have this Institute and we have the Chemists Institute and I think no other institute would regard itself as being on the same level as those two institutes.
It would be worthwhile that the position should be tied to the president of the institute or his nominee. That is probably debatable but still the president is the person who is the representative of that broad group of scientists. Consequently, I appeal to the Minister to give representation to it; otherwise, what is the Minister to do? Is he to write to the University Colleges asking them to submit the qualifications of members engaged in research? Likewise, is he to write to other institutions and ask them how their chief officers are working?
If he is not to take that obvious course, what other course can he take? How can he get to know who is who in these various fields, unless he asks who is working in them? Otherwise, we will have the unsatisfactory position which we have faced in the appointment of many boards where there does not seem to be any line of reasoning in relation to choosing the members. For that reason, I hope the Minister will come some distance to meet this amendment which I assure him I put down only after very serious consideration and after much experience in research organisations both in this country and elsewhere.
As I said in the course of the Second Reading debate I have a strong objection to nominating boards as if they were conventions. I want to appoint a working board, a board of management, of people who are not only interested in and versed in research but interested in and versed in management of the affairs of industries and of companies. If my hands were tied in the manner suggested by the Senator, by nominating representatives of Universities, of certain institutions, the civil engineers, the chemists and others, then my choice of a board would be very limited, limited to what he suggests, three members to be appointed by me. I suggest that the basis on which the board will be appointed, as set out in the section, is sufficiently broad to enable me to select people for membership of this board who will be effective.
Speaking of effectiveness, the Senator mentioned having met a scientist or a chemist in the Lobby a few moments ago, who complained that one of the reasons the former board— or should I say, the existing board—was not effective was that there was too much State interference. The exact contrary was the case. Apart from the rights of the Minister in the matter of appointing staff, the amount of State interference in the activities of the existing Institute for Industrial Research and Standards was minimal, certainly since I came into office. I met the committees of the Council at their own request on one occasion, and I visited the Institute on another occasion, again at the request of the Council. There was no other interference by me or, as far as I know, by any member of my Department.
The Senator mentioned that the State should not interfere generally. What is the State? He is the State. Everybody in the country is the State and we, the elected representatives, are the representatives of the people who form the State. When somebody suggests there is too much State interference in this or that activity, it means the people's direct representatives are interfering. That is their function and that is what they are elected for. I have made inquiries myself, and I know from experience gained in my Department, that one of the reasons the outgoing Institute was not effective was that it had not enough of the direct application to industries which it was set up to achieve.
If, as the Senator suggests, representatives of the University Colleges in Dublin, Cork and Galway, and Trinity College, Dublin, should be appointed, then I am completely in the hands of whoever is going to nominate these representatives. I would not know how effective they would be or what their particular lines of activity might be and I would not know their idiosyncrasies. Similarly, in regard to the requirement that I should select the president of the Institute or his nominee I would be tying his hands and the hands of the Oireachtas in the matter of selection.
If some members of the Dáil or Seanad complain about the activities of a member of the Institute, I can only say: "I am afraid I have no function. That member was nominated by a university college or a certain institute outside my control." On the contrary of the Board which I propose to appoint, I shall be personally responsible to the Oireachtas for the appointment of each and every one of the members. As I say, I want a board that will be fully representative of the interests set out in the section as it stands. It will be sufficiently broadly based, I think.
My point with regard to appointing a nominee of a certain institution is that that person might not be fully effective as a member of the Institute because his allegiance might be elsewhere. He will owe allegiance to the organisation which he represents and he will probably owe primary allegiance to that organisation.
I want to repeat what I said originally. Membership of this Board will be decided only after very careful consideration. Again, in reply to a remark made by the Senator, that consideration will not be confined to information available within my Department. I have at my disposal the advice in that respect of the outgoing Council of the Institute. I have at my disposal the advice of industrialists, of people engaged in research in industry, and even of members of the universities.
I have no doubt that if I applied to the President of University College, Cork, for comment on the qualifications and suitability of a person on his staff whom I had in mind to appoint to the Board of the Institute, he would give me a helpful and objective appraisal of that man's capabilities and suitability for the Board.
I do not propose to appoint a convention. I want to appoint a board of management comprised of men and women, or men or women, who will owe allegiance in this matter to the Institute only, who will be selected to serve on the Institute. For those reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I accept entirely the Minister's good faith in this matter. He has a very difficult task indeed in selecting an appropriate board to do the work which this Institute is being set up to do. I am not enamoured of the amendment as drafted. It has the defects the Minister alleges against it and, as it stands, I think it would not be quite workable.
The Minister perhaps is not sufficiently apprised of the real difficulties in this kind of situation. He said at the beginning that he would like people who were very good at research applied to industry and good at the same time at management. There are not very many of those people available in this country or indeed in any country.
We could have a balance of them.
Perhaps, but you might get a good manager who was not good at research, or a good research man who was not good at management. To get a person who comprehends the difficulties of research and, at the same time, is good at management, is a matter of very great difficulty.
The Minister also said—and I know he said it in perfectly good faith; we are all at one on this point—that we want industry to progress and science to be applied and get the best possible results. The real difficulty is: what kind of board would be best to achieve that? I think the Minister suggested —I hope I am not misrepresenting him—that one of the causes of the comparative failure of another board was that it had not sufficient direct application to industry. One of the most difficult things in the world is to get people to do research which will be applicable to industry, that is, to get people to go into laboratories and find out something which can be applied to a factory making boots, or petrol for the matter of that.
I suggested on the last occasion when we were discussing this amendment in Committee that the Board would be very much improved if a person were appointed even if he did have idiosyncrasies. The Minister mentioned the word "idiosyncrasies" and seems to think that was a bad thing. Unfortunately, in university circles, a great many people have idiosyncrasies and some of the best research people in the world have perhaps more idiosyncrasies than others.
I can see this matter entirely from the outside and I think the Board would be improved, and the Minister's object nearly achieved, if he were to appoint to the Board one person highly skilled in pure unapplied research. He would want only one such person on the Board. The Board might find him to some degree difficult but I think his difficulty, his knowledge, and his experience, would be a very good leaven, so to speak, in the general make-up of the Board. There is a great problem in harnessing pure science to industry to be availed of in a practical way in the development of industry.
Having heard the Minister, trying to understand his mind, and giving him, as I say, complete credit for being entirely bona fide in this matter, I doubt that his attitude of mind will get the best board. If I were Minister—and I am afraid this is where I differ from Senator Quinlan—I would not accept this amendment. I have the same objection as the Minister to a board made up of people who did not necessarily come together in a particular way, but I think the Minister's power is too restricted. If he were to go to a university college or a research institute, find someone there and put him on the Board—or her—the Board would probably be very much improved, and what the Minister has in mind, and what we all have in mind, would be nearer to achievement than the application of what I conceive to be the Minister's present state of mind to getting this Board to work properly.
The Board will not be a paid research staff. It will have a staff.
The Board will have to cope with a research staff and in order to cope with a research staff, the Board should have someone on it who understands research, not only from the point of view of its application to industry but to pure research.
Ní doigh liom gur féidir liom taobhú leis an leasú a mhol an Seanadóir Ó Cuinnleáin. Tá sé ag iarraidh an iomarca nuair a éilíann sé go nainmeódh na hOllscoileanna agus na hInstitiúid baill an Bhoird agus go bhfágfaí ainmniuchán triúr faoin Aire. Is locht é sin ar an leasú atá dhá iarraidh aige. Aontaím leis an Aire nár cheart dó glacadh leis.
According to what the Minister said, one would think that the Agricultural Institute would be a complete failure.
I made no reference whatsoever to the Agricultural Institute.
There the different bodies nominated the different people to the board. Their hands do not seem to be tied. The Minister for Agriculture is in control of it and I doubt if his hands are tied. The Board seems to be functioning properly and it is agreed by all that it is a success. Its personnel are dedicated to their task; they owe allegiance to nobody but the Institute. The Minister claims that if they were nominated by particular bodies they would owe allegiance to the bodies nominating them. Deputy de Valera, as he was then, piloted that Bill through the Dáil and Seanad. Whether in his wisdom or otherwise, he made the arrangement that the different bodies would nominate the different people. To whom do they owe their allegiance? They are men dedicated to their work. I do not think the hands of the Minister for Agriculture are tied in any way. It has proved a success. The same applies to the Milk Board set up recently. The different bodies nominate their own particular members to it. We set up a marketing research board recently and we had the same procedure. The Minister is adopting a different procedure in this Bill. I doubt if his argument holds water.
There is actually no comparison between the body which it is suggested to set up and An Foras Talúntais. I should like to remind Senator Quinlan that when the Bill in connection with An Foras Talúntais was going through this House, he proposed 30 amendments. At the time the Taoiseach, now An tUachtarán, conducted the Bill through this House and we ultimately finished it by changing one word in that Bill. The Senator succeeded by agreement in changing one word, if my recollection is correct.
One would expect Senator Quinlan to rave completely about the fact that the Minister now sitting here proposes to nominate nine members to this Board himself. We had a division in this House on a recent Bill because the Minister then here suggested that he should nominate the chairman of a body consisting of twenty members. Let us be factual. If we could quote Papal Encyclicals in regard to what the Minister for Health was doing, what should we quote in regard to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce proposes to do in nominating nine members of this Board? The Board is to consist of not more than nine members, of whom one shall be the chairman and the others ordinary members.
The amendment proposed by Senator Quinlan is ridiculous. Candidly, I must be rather stupid if I cannot interpret the matter correctly. If my interpretation is correct, the thing would actually be inoperable. It would, I think, negative the whole effect of the Bill. Subsequent clauses in the same section would have to be altered. If this amendment were accepted, one might as well withdraw the Bill. He suggests in the amendment that the Board shall alternately consist of one member appointed by the Science and Engineering faculties of each of the following Institutions: University College, Dublin; University College, Cork; University College, Galway, and Trinity College, Dublin. The Science faculty at University College, Cork, appoints a man for three years and subsequently for the next three years the Engineering faculty would do likewise. That is my interpretation of the word "alternately".
That is correct.
If that is correct, the thing is idiotic because the subsequent subsections of Section 8 would be negatived altogether. You might have four institutions. I call them three university colleges and one university. One would appoint a member from a faculty for three years. Others might appoint from different faculties. I think the Minister would be in difficulties altogether if he tried to keep track of this. It would not work. If a Senator were seriously to put down an amendment such as this, he should follow it up with the consequential amendments in the other subsections of the section. The system he suggests would negative the whole thing. We might just as well withdraw the Bill.
He was told that by Senator Hayes.
In reply to my very good friend, Senator Ó Donnabháin, I must go on record as saying that I am proud of the part I played in the debate on the Agricultural Institute Bill. Again, it was a type of research work and organisation that I knew something about and have studied considerably. Also I am proud of the replies made by the then Taoiseach, now our distinguished President, on that occasion. Many of the amendments were put down to elicit information and I got that information to the satisfaction of the House and everybody else as Senator Ó Donnabháin should know. Consequently, I am not going to be intimidated by Senator Ó Donnabháin or anybody else in doing my duty as I see it in moving an amendment where I think it is necessary.
Everything the Minister said could have been directed completely against the Agricultural Institute or against any other board whether it is An Bórd Bainne, An Bórd Altranais or any of the others. I think the Minister's reasoning is all wrong.
Would the Senator have a representative of every type of industry in order to bring his argument to a logical conclusion?
The Minister could include those, if he wished. I very much appreciate the good faith of the Minister in this; I appreciate his approach to it. I know he will appoint the best Board possible but we are dealing with legislation as of to-day. We are dealing with the present Minister, with future Ministers and future situations. That is what legislation is for. As I say, hell is paved with good intentions and so are many Acts.
We have got to be on our guard against this modern fallacy that we get from every Minister who comes here acting in good faith. One might sum it all up in the 18th Century quotation that the King can do no wrong, because in our situation—this is a Republic and not a monarchy—the Minister can do no wrong.
If he does, he will be told off very quickly.
That is a totally unrealistic concept of democracy. Democracy means more than merely having a choice of team every five years. It means that some outside groups should play a part in the development and work of the five years while the team was there. I have made my points clearly. I cannot accept the answer because it is so much at variance with what we know is happening in relation to other boards and what is the correct thing to have.
Also, of course, the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers could be a crank and therefore could be ineligible to be a president of the board of any institution. That is ascribing, again, a power to a Minister that he can say a person is a crank while the whole profession which honours that person and elects him as President for the year does not know he is a crank. To my mind, that seems a very wrong thing.
In appreciation of the Minister's attitude in meeting some of the amendments I put down the last day, thereby showing I am not wasting my time in moving amendments, despite what Senator Ó Donnabháin may appear to think, I have pleasure in withdrawing this amendment. I suggest to Senator Ó Donnabháin that he might put down an amendment or two and then perhaps we might function more properly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, might go together.
We agree with the Ministerial amendments.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, line 2 to delete "third" and substitute "fifth"; and in line 4, to delete "triennially" and substitute "quinquennially".
In effect, this amendment is on all fours with the amendment submitted by Senator Quinlan but it was submitted in this form before his amendments on the Report Stage were submitted. That is why they both appear in the same form.
I wish to thank the Minister. I think it is a very wide extension that these boards will be appointed every five years rather than every three years. The longer the period in a research organisation, the more continuity we may expect in work.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 6, line 6, to delete "triennial" and substitute "quinquennial."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In pages 6, to delete section 13 (1), lines 30 to 33, inclusive.
This amendment is an attempt to ameliorate the ban placed on members of the Oireachtas in relation to serving on public boards. The amelioration suggested here is that subsection (1) be deleted, so that, if a member of the Board of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards becomes a member of the Dáil or Seanad, he may continue his membership of the Board until the Board comes up for re-election. Then, under subsection (2), he would be ineligible for reappointment. That is just a half-way measure to what I hope will later be the full measure that will rule out such restrictive clauses altogether.
It is right and proper for members of the Oireachtas to sit on boards of the universities, to be members of the Senate of the University, to sit on the Agricultural Institute Board, to be members of the Institute for Advanced Studies. If it is right and proper for them to be on those boards, then I do not see why they should be anathema on boards like this. I believe we are growing up and if we are growing up, then it behoves us all to remove some of the stigma that attaches to the word "politican" which is used to denigrate those who make their contribution to public service.
I believe the time has come for the Government to review this and at least let us have consistency. Either one is qualified and acceptable to sit on all boards or on none. Surely the first hallmark of very good legislation must be consistency and continuity? Consequently, I am appealing that the Minister take at least one step in this direction by deleting subsection (1).
At the outset, I want to say I am sure I share with everybody in this House the high regard that must be held for people in public life. It is a calling, a dedication. I would always defend public persons, representative persons, from attack, no matter from what quarter. I would even hold a brief for Senator L'Estrange if he were attacked, because he is a man in public life.
I hope the Minister will open the brief and make the appropriate speech on the brief.
In relation to this Board, I want to say that I think it is wrong that a person who is a member of the House should also be a member of a board like this. I think each House of the Oireachtas should be entitled, on any occasion, to call to account the membership of a board like this, to call to account their activities and to be able to deal with these activities objectively.
A member of a board who is also a member of the House would find himself to a certain extent in perhaps an embarrassing position by having to defend the activities of a board, if it were called to account. On Committee Stage, I accepted an amendment which required a member of the Board to resign if nominated for election to either House of the Oireachtas. I think that is as far as I ought to go.
The Senator mentioned a number of other organisations established under statute of which, he said, membership was permitted while a person was still a member of the Oireachtas. He mentioned An Foras Talúntais. As far as I am concerned, and the boards for which I am responsible, it has been consistent practice that membership of the Oireachtas is not compatible with membership of these boards. It is not because it has been the consistent practice that I stand on the section as it now is but because I agree with that practice. I agree with it for reasons that are obvious to the House and for reasons that are shared by the vast majority of members of both Houses. I do not think I need elaborate on it. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
The Minister's reasons, as given, appear quite valid in this context. Then when you take the sister organisation, the Agricultural Institute, they just do not hold water. There is no such section in the Agricultural Institute measure.
There is no member of the Oireachtas in it.
The Institute for Advanced Studies might be quoted. I have been a member of that Institute for 10 years and it is in no way incompatible with my duties here. The Minister's concern is for members who might be embarrassed. If we take that far enough we might say that the same embarrassment might be felt here by members of a political Party when it is being attacked or, actually, in the case of universities, of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives, that we should hang our heads when a university is being attacked here. I think we have shown we do no such thing; in fact, we have been instrumental in showing how wrong some of those attacks have been. I have just put this down for consideration. I do not expect to gain the point today or tomorrow but we will keep at it and any time such a clause appears in a Bill, we will keep plugging away and some time we will succeed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathoirleach
Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 go together. If amendment No. 9 is negatived, the others may not be moved.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 7, lines 4 and 5, to delete "stand seconded from such employment" and substitute "obtain the necessary leave of absence."
This is a variation on some other Bills which require that such a person should resign. Of course the whole thing is nebulous. What officer of one of those boards, of the high standing required for service on such a board, could possibly resign from the board and accept the allowance given in the Dáil or the Seanad and condemn his family to live on that? I hope that the day is not too far distant when the professional classes, who, you might say, are excluded from either House of the Oireachtas, will at least get a chance to serve their country in this respect. The only professions that can be represented here at the moment are the lawyers, and to a minor extent the teachers who can appoint substitutes and get the difference between their salary and the substitute's salary. Another group are the medical officers of health, but the vast majority of our professions cannot serve. Take, for example, the engineers of whom 95 per cent. are in public employment with local authorities or with various boards. These are precluded from ever becoming members of the Dáil or Seanad.
I put down this amendment to draw attention to this type of political apartheid which is being practised here. The question is asked why do graduates of the universities not play a greater part in the national life and the answer is they cannot afford to do so, unless they are prepared to reduce their families to penury. That was never the intention and it should not be expected of anybody. We should begin to progress like they have begun to progress in Holland where professional classes are attracted to play a part, at least in proportion to their numbers, in the affairs of their country. In Holland, any professional person, even a civil servant, can obtain leave of absence to become a member of Parliament. That shows how they value their freedom, when it extends as far as the Civil Service itself. Not only that, but if there is a differential in salary, between what the officer is getting at the time he gets leave of absence and the allowance in the Dutch Parliament, the body concerned, the State or local authority, will make up the difference so that his family does not suffer from the fact that he goes into public service.
Again, I must quote the Agricultural Institute because it is the companion body to this Institute; agriculture and industry are the twin partners in our development. The Agricultural Institute, on the one hand, and the Industrial Institute, on the other, should be twin partners and what is proper for one should surely be proper for the other. In the vast majority of cases, I think, in the Agricultural Institute, many of those employed are not debarred by statute from membership of either House. Can the Minister justify the application of one rule to the agricultural officers serving in the Agricultural Institute and another to the officers in the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards?
I am not certain that officers of the Agricultural Institute can become members of either House of the Oireachtas——
Oh, yes.
—and still hold their jobs.
With the permission of the Board.
They will hardly draw their salaries at the same time.
The whole thing depends on the Board.
I think it is undesirable where a person is appointed, whether as a technical, administrative or clerical assistant, that he should be entitled to absent himself from the duties for which he is primarily paid out of State funds, and come along and be paid again out of State funds. Some of his activities will have to suffer. If he cannot attend his job in the Institute, somebody will have to be appointed in his place. That person appointed in his place does the work—it might be essential work of a research nature of practical help to industries—and after a short time he will become expert. He will then find himself faced with the return of the person he has replaced and with the prospect of being out of a job. That would be a difficult and undesirable situation which should be avoided.
Any officer or servant of the Board, having been elected to either House of the Oireachtas, is seconded from his employment but that does not mean his employment is terminated. Not only is it not terminated, and not only can he return to work if and when he resigns or loses his seat in either House, but he can also preserve his superannuation entitlement over the period by paying the necessary contribution. I think that is not ungenerous in the circumstances. He will always have his job to return to and will have preserved his superannuation entitlement. The country will know that no matter in what sphere he serves, whether as a member of the Institute or a member of either House of the Oireachtas, he will be able to devote sufficient time to the one or the other.
I might also instance a person who might be in the Dail at the moment and also be holding down a job in the Institute. He might be a chemist doing some special work and at present he would be required to attend to the Dail from 2 p.m. until 11 p.m. for two days of the week, and from 10.30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on the third day, which is a normal working day. It is unreasonable to assume he can attend to the two jobs at the same time, attend to his duties in the Institute and also his duties in the Oireachtas. Duties in the Oireachtas are not limited to attendance at Meetings of the Houses. There are committee meetings and other activities which have to be attended to. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to require that a man who finds that his bent is for politics should have leave to stand seconded from his original job, with the right to go back to it, if and when he ceases to be a member of the Oireachtas, and, at the same time, preserve his superannuation rights. I do not think this country is well enough off to pay a salary to a person for not doing a job.
That is not suggested.
The amendment does not take it into account.
The next amendment does.
However, the question would arise in any case that the person would have to be replaced in his original job. If he lost his seat, I take it he would have the right to go back and, therefore, he would displace whoever had replaced him in the interim. That is undesirable and should be avoided. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
The point made by the Minister was that the main objection would be that if the person went back to his original job, he would displace someone else. Surely that applies anywhere people are seconded. Surely there are provisions under which a person can be given leave of absence, and surely leave of absence could be given, taking this amendment in conjunction with amendment No. 10 which provides: "he shall be paid by the Board such salary or wages as the Board with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may decide." I did not at any time envisage that people would be paid for work they did not do.
The Seanad meets a few times a year. Perhaps we have not more than 30 sessions, and if we take the average attendance, it is not good. In fact, it cannot be classed as being more than a part-time job. Consequently, the amendment would relate more to membership of the Seanad than to membership of the Dáil.
The Minister has indicated his mind on the matter and has gone further in this Bill than most other Bills in that he has made provision for secondment. At least we can hope that line will be followed in future Bills, and we can hope that we will advance to the ideal situation proposed in my amendment. Even here, it can be said that we get leave of absence from our employment. I do not see why the professional group should be treated differently. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 14, to delete lines 22 and 23.
This amendment is designed to meet the point raised on Committee Stage that the Institute should not be required to hold public examinations for posts calling for specialised qualifications. The point was made that almost any post in the Institute, apart from clerical posts, would call for specialised qualifications not commonly held. I propose to accept the point which was made and not to include in the posts in respect of which the Institute is required to hold public competitions posts which in fact require specialised qualifications not normally held. I think that fully meets the point which was made.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 14, line 34, to delete "any office" and substitute "not more than two offices"; and in line 35, to delete "an office" and substitute "offices".
This amendment goes almost as far as Senator Quinlan wants me to go. Originally in the Bill, the Minister was empowered to designate certain posts in respect of which the Institute would have to consult him before the appointments were made. The purpose of that consultation was to ensure that the terms of these appointments would not get out of line with similar posts in other spheres of activity.
I still hold it is essential that the Minister should have that power and I hope that the amendment limiting the scope of that power of two designated appointments will meet the case. I can only repeat that it is likely that these two designated posts will be the senior posts on one side or the other, or on one side or both sides. When I refer to one side or the other, I refer to the administrative, technical or scientific side. I think it is necessary that the Minister should have power to regulate the conditions of employment and the salaries to be given. It is a power that will be used liberally and with full regard to the necessity for attracting the best type of person to each of the designated posts. I think the House will agree that power is necessary, and that I have gone quite a distance in limiting the power I propose to take.
The Minister has met most of the objections raised and the power he now asks is similar to the power conferred on the Agricultural Institute. I should like an interpretation of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) which says:
a person shall not be appointed to an office so designated save with the consent of the Minister,
I take it that implies that the, appointment is with the Minister's consent. I take it that the appointment of a person rests completely with the Board of the Institute and that this subsection merely means that the Minister shall consent to the appointment being made?
The purpose of the paragraph is to keep an eye on the remuneration and not on the person to be appointed. I said on Second Stage that a man will be selected and I will have no knowledge of his capabilities or how he would fit the requirements of the Institute. It is only natural and perfectly reasonable that we should leave the personality to the Institute, my function being limited to ensuring that the remuneration and conditions of employment will not get out of line.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18.
In page 15, line 45, to delete "industrial" and substitute "applied".
We discussed this matter on Committee Stage and the Minister for Transport and Power undertook to look into the terminology. I think that has been done. I would prefer the word "applied", but I think the general feeling was that we should leave the term as wide as possible. I thought it was wider than the word "industrial", but the Minister seems to hold that the word "industrial" is the widest term. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten the House?
I still think that the word "industrial" is the widest. It is the term that conforms to the Long Title in the Bill. There could be research in many forms of activity— agricultural, medical, social, political and so on. The word "research" could apply to any one of these. There could be applied, pure or basic research. I must insist on the retention of the term "industrial research" in this section.
The difficulty that arises there is to decide what is industrial research. In other words, there is the question of the giving of a research grant to a post-graduate student to carry on his training in some branch of chemistry, with the ultimate expectation that he will be a properly trained person to tackle the more specific problems of industrial research later on. I want to ensure that such grants can be given under this.
That will be a matter for the Board. The Board will make up their own minds.
I am anxious to ensure that the term "industrial" is interpreted as liberally as the Minister interprets it for us.
I am sure it will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 15, to delete all words from and including "undertaking" in line 47 to the end of the subsection and substitute "engaged in research."
This amendment was designed more or less to cover the same field. I think we can take the Minister's assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 16, between lines 42 and 43, to add a new subsection to section 42 as follows :—
"( ) A comprehensive summary report of the work of the Institute shall be prepared every five years."
I think it very wise to include this provision in any Bill dealing with the setting up of a new body where at least we have the customary yearly reports laid on the Table of the Oireachtas. I am asking that a comprehensive summary report of the work of the Institute shall be prepared every five years, rather than that the members of the Oireachtas should be faced with five separate reports. We should have a brief summary report covering the main research carried out over that five-year period. There is such a provision in regard to the Institute for Advanced Studies and, I think, there is a corresponding provision in regard to the Agricultural Institute.
It would not take very much effort to prepare such a report by a Board having a staff available to it. They could take the results of the five years and condense them into single report size. That would give to the members here a satisfactory progress report as to how the Institute was faring.
I do not think it would be necessary and certainly it would make for duplication. As in the case of every State board, the Board is required to submit its report annually. I do not think it would impose any undue strain on anybody, if they wanted to get a two or three years view of the activities of a board, to consult the yearly reports, which, as in the case of other boards, follow a certain format. I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that activities started in one year which were not quite completed will be adverted to in the report of subsequent years. There will be that continuity of account in regard to the activities of the board.
Another point I should like to make is that these reports are fairly costly and I think that in the interests of economy, we should not require boards like this to publish accounts of their activities already available not only in another form, but in another very convenient form. I have received complaints from time to time in respect of the annual reports of boards that they are not published within a sufficiently short time after the end of the year with which they deal. There are many reasons for that. First of all, there is the fact that the Board itself has other activities to look after. Also, the printing facilities in this country are not unlimited and neither are the financial facilities. Therefore, under all headings, I think it unnecessary that we should impose this extra burden on the Board itself, on the resources of the State printing office or on the Exchequer. I do not think the amendment is necessary.
This burden is imposed on the Institute for Advanced Studies and to very good effect. A report from a research institute is not like a report from C.I.E. with tabulated figures and so on. Research, of necessity, flows from one to the other. Most of the report would be taken up with describing many beginnings and trying to forecast endings. It would be impossible for members of the House to take five reports together and make a reasonable assessment of the progress made in those five years. It is a professional job, calling for somebody who understands research. If the Minister is concerned, as he is, with undue costs, printing and so on, it would be far better if he settled for a consolidated report every three years than to give what some research men call promissory notes to meet a shorter period.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 21.
In page 17, to delete section 45, lines 43 to 45, and substitute the following new section:—
"45. The Institute may from time to time publish scientific and technical information in its own name, including, with the consent of the Minister, codes of recommended practice."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 go together.
This amendment is designed to meet a point made by Senator Quinlan on Committee Stage. Section 45 says:—
The Institute may from time to time with the approval of the Minister publish scientific and technical information including codes of recommended practice in the name of the Institute.
Senator Quinlan suggested that the words "with the aproval of the Minister" should be deleted. My amendment proposes to meet his point but only insofar as it affects the publication of scientific and technical information. In other words, any scientific and technical information the Institute wishes to publish, it can publish, without any recourse to the Minister, in its own name and under its own authority.
A different consideration arises when we come to the publication of data on codes of recommended practice. In that matter, the Minister must have some rights to ensure that the data it does publish are in no way harmful. I use the word "harmful" in a very liberal way. If I take an example, it may, perhaps, illustrate what I mean. If, in the course of one of these publications, the Institute suggests a certain component part, which is available inside and outside the country, should be used in the manufacture of a certain commodity and if it recommended that the component should be the one procurable in Britain and not in Ireland, I do not think it would be desirable that an Institute in respect of which I have over-all authority should be permitted to publish such a code of practice without my specific knowledge and consent.
Similiarly, in publishing codes of practice, it might invade the field of labour relations. For example, in regard to demarcation between one employment and another or one skill and another, it might make proposals in its published codes of practice which would be matters peculiarly within the province of the Minister himself, and perhaps, more peculiarly still, matters for settlement between labour interests. I do not think it should be given carte blanche to publish matters such as these under the heading of Codes of Practice. That might well be dangerous from the national point of view and from the labour relations point of view.
I do not know that it could ever arise but nevertheless I do not want to take a chance that it could issue such publications that would be dangerous or a source of embarrassment. They might create difficulties that they are not competent to assess. The Minister, whoever he might be, would be in a much better position, having regard to the experience of his Department in the use of certain commodities, in the matter of the line of demarcation between certain trades and crafts as applied to particular industries. Therefore, any publications in that line ought to be subject to the Minister's approval. I have no objection to the publication of technical scientific data without the approval of the Minister and without recourse to the Minister because it must be assumed that the Institute and not the Minister is the best judge of the data it proposes to publish. Therefore, I submit the amendment goes some distance to meet the Senator's point but, on the other hand, it only goes so far as to ensure that the safeguards I have mentioned will be still there.
The Minister's amendment fully meets the case I made on Committee Stage. I was concerned with safeguarding that the publication of scientific and technical information should solely be the function of the Institute.
I wonder if the word "may" here means "shall"?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think it means "may" on this occasion.
I was going to support Senator Quinlan on his amendment No. 22, strange to relate, on this section about including a summary of the work every three years or every five years. Under Section 45 the Institute "may" do this. I would rather have "shall" do this. In Senator Quinlan's previous amendment, he suggested a comprehensive summary report of the work every five years. I should like to see something to that effect published every few years. It will not necessitate scrutinising three annual reports. We could add "including a summary of the work every three years".
I think Section 45 as it stands gives the Institute power to publish matters of that nature, comprehensive or otherwise, covering a period of three, five or seven years.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think it does, too.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.